1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainant is that her late mother, Mami Sahu during her life time had obtained an LIC Policy bearing No.573289221 w.e.f. 11.02.2012 under which the complainant was the nominee.  It is submitted that the life assured died on 27.7.2014 and after the death of life assured, one Namita Sahu being the legal heir of the deceased had advanced the death claim by filing affidavit to prove that the nominee Anjali Sahu is also known as Bhabani Sahu on all records.  It is further submitted that after receipt of relevant documents, the Ops did not settle the claim in favour of the nominee namely Anjali Sahu @ Bhabani Sahu.  Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops she filed this case praying the Forum to direct the OP to settle the claim in favor of Anjali Sahu @ Bhabani Sahu and to pay Rs.1.00 lac towards compensation to the complainant.

2.                     The OP filed counter admitting the policy obtained by Mami Sahu with nomination of Anjali Sahu (minor) with date of commencement 11.02.2012 and contended that one Binodini Nayak, W/o. P. K. Dash was declared as appointee of the minor.  It is contended that the life assured died on 27.7.2014 when the policy was in lapsed condition due to nonpayment of premium and this being the early claim was forwarded to Divisional Office, Berhampur for approval.  The OP is also in doubt whether the claim will be settled in the name of nominee or the appointee and is waiting for direction of the Forum.  Thus denying any fault on its part the OP prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                     Both the parties have filed certain documents in support of their cases.  The representative of the complainant has filed affidavit.  Heard from the parties through their respective A/Rs and perused the materials available on record.

4.                     In this case insurance policy vide No.573289221 obtained by Mami Sahu  from the OP for a sum assured of Rs.1.00 lac  with DOC from 11.2.2012 on quarterly rest with nomination of her daughter, Anjali Sahu are all admitted facts.  It is also an admitted fact that the Life Assured (LA) died on 27.7.2014.  The case of the complainant is that the Grandmother of the minor nominee advanced death claim with necessary documents but the OP did not settle the claim.

5.                     The OP stated that the claim is coming under early claim and the policy was also in the lapse condition.  On perusal of record it is seen that the DOC of the policy is 11.2.2012 and the quarterly premium remains unpaid from 5/2014 whereas the LA died on 27.7.2014.  Hence it was ascertained that the LA has paid the premiums for a complete period of two years and as per Clause-4 of the Policy, if two full year’s premiums have been paid and any subsequent premium  be not duly paid, full death cover shall continue for a period of two years from the date of first unpaid premium.  In view of above condition of the policy, it can be safely concluded that the policy was not in lapse condition and the nominee is entitled for death benefit.

6.                     The OP further raised objection that under the policy, Anjali Sahu is the nominee and as per information available in the proposal form, one Binodini Nayak, W/o. P. K. Dash was declared as appointee of the minor but the present case has been filed by one Namita Sahu, who is not a consumer and hence this case is not maintainable and required to be dismissed.  It is seen from the copy of Legal Heir certificate filed by the complainant that there are four legal heirs of late Mami Sahu and Smt. Namita Sahu is the mother and legal heir of her including Bhabani Sahu, the present complainant.  Hence Namita Sahu being the legal heir is representing the complainant Anjali Sahu @ Bhabani Sahu in this case and in our view  Namita Sahu is the right person to represent the minor complainant in this case.

7.                     It is also noticed that the nomination of Anjali Sahu is appearing in the policy bond and the representative Namita Sahu has filed affidavit dt.30.11.2014 before the LIC authorities stating that Anjali Sahu is the nick name of Bhabani Sahu and hence Anjali and Bhabani are one and same person.  On summing up of the facts and circumstances we come to the conclusion that Anjali Sahu, which name appears in the policy bond as nominee is also known as Bhabani Sahu on all official record and hence Bhabani Sahu, whose nick name is Anjali is entitled to get the benefit of above said policy of her mother Mami Sahu.

8.                     It is stated in the complaint petition that Namita Sahu being the legal heir of LA had applied for death settlement claim but the OP did not settle the claim.  The OP stated that due to early claim they forwarded the matter to their D. O., Berhampur and could not decide whether the claim shall be settled in favour of minor daughter Anjali or in the name of Binodini Nayak.  On the other hand the nominee Anjali is the nick name of Bhabani.  In the above circumstances, the matter was delayed.  The OP also sought direction of the Forum on whose name the claim shall be settled.  As we found that names Anjali and Bhabani are one person and official name of Anjali is Bhabani, the OP is to be directed to settle the claim in the name of Anjali Sahu @ Bhabani Sahu.  In this case, we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of OP but the amount so settled shall carry interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of this case.

9.                     Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the OP is directed to pay the sum assured of Rs.1, 00,000/- with assured benefits if any, besides interest @ 6% p.a. on such settlement amount from 14.1.2016 to the complainant, Anjali Sahu @ Bhabani Sahu within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.